I. Executive Summary
This report evaluates the Fire Chief’s performance across 14 Leadership Traits and 11 Leadership Principles, using a structured scale of 1 (Severely Lacking) to 5 (Outstanding). Based on firsthand operational and interpersonal experiences, the assessment reveals a critical failure of leadership. The Chief is consistently ineffective in both tactical and administrative leadership, demonstrating a pattern of favoritism, fear-driven decision-making, poor communication, low moral courage, and failure to develop or maintain team cohesion.
II. Leadership Traits Evaluation
Average Trait Score: 1.15 / 5
III. Leadership Principles Evaluation
Average Principle Score: 1.00 / 5
IV. Morale and Organizational Climate
The Chief’s leadership actively undermines morale, erodes trust, and breeds resentment. Favoritism, avoidance of accountability, and lack of professional competence have created an atmosphere where loyalty is to the paycheck, not the mission, and firefighters feel expendable rather than empowered. His apparent inability or unwillingness to update his skillset or acknowledge his shortcomings has left the department stagnant, reactive, and vulnerable.
The Chief no longer represents the spirit of the fire service—courage, integrity, selfless service—but rather embodies the bureaucratic decay that has infected many public institutions: rule by tenure and politics, not merit or mission.
V. Strategic Implications
Such leadership may not only endanger operational efficiency but poses a critical risk to firefighter safety, public trust, and departmental integrity. In high-stakes environments like fire/rescue, poor leadership doesn’t just breed dissatisfaction—it can result in injuries, deaths, or catastrophic community failures.
VI. Recommendations
Immediate Audit of Leadership Practices – An external review of the Chief’s decision-making, training protocols, and personnel management should be conducted.
Succession Planning – Begin identifying and mentoring competent leaders who exemplify the 14 traits and 11 principles.
Leadership Development Pipeline – Implement leadership training for company officers and future chiefs focused on courage, empathy, and tactical proficiency.
Mental Health & Morale Recovery – Bring in third-party resources to assess morale and address mental health concerns resulting from leadership failures.
VII. Final Assessment
This Fire Chief’s continued leadership represents a liability, not an asset, to the department. If forced to follow him into a fire or a political challenge, there would be no confidence in his competence, judgment, or integrity. His command is rooted in a bygone era, propped up by politics rather than performance. For the good of the department and the community, change must occur.
Over the course of more than three decades of service, Chief Steven Holtzman has accumulated substantial operational experience within the Beachwood Fire & Rescue Department. However, numerous concerns have been raised by current and former personnel regarding the character and effectiveness of his leadership, especially during his tenure as Chief since 2019.
Chief Holtzman’s management approach has been widely described as authoritarian and punitive rather than collaborative or inspirational. His leadership style has often lacked emotional intelligence, with a consistent pattern of poor communication, limited empathy, and dismissiveness toward the well-being of his subordinates. For instance, when approached by a member expressing symptoms of burnout, Chief Holtzman allegedly responded, “Well, get it together because I need you bright-eyed and bushy-tailed for the next call”—a statement perceived by peers as insensitive and indicative of a broader disregard for mental health and work-life balance. Similarly, his minimization of sleep as a “creature comfort” has led to concerns about the Department’s operational readiness and member safety.
More troubling are reported comments made in jest regarding suicide—a serious issue in the fire service. Such remarks have created a culture of distrust and emotional distance between leadership and rank-and-file members. His reluctance to engage in future planning—citing fear of being held accountable—has further eroded confidence. He has openly refused to develop 10-, 5-, or even 1-year strategic goals, stating, “If I didn’t accomplish it, you guys could hold me accountable.” This avoidance undermines transparency, long-term vision, and organizational growth.
Operationally, Chief Holtzman has demonstrated an unwillingness to advocate for increased staffing, reportedly due to concerns about political fallout or job security. Simultaneously, he has instituted rigid policies—such as a zero-tolerance tattoo policy—that many view as arbitrary and morale-reducing rather than mission-critical.
Culturally, his leadership has been marked by a tendency to rule through the threat of punishment rather than through mentorship or positive engagement. Suggestions from staff are often interpreted as personal challenges to his authority rather than opportunities for dialogue or improvement. There have also been repeated allegations of inappropriate humor, including remarks perceived as racially or sexually insensitive—behavior unbecoming of a leader in a diverse, modern fire service.
Finally, in moments requiring judgment and decisiveness, Chief Holtzman has shown a consistent lack of sound and timely decision-making. His preference to discipline first and investigate later, allegedly to avoid liability, has resulted in reactive rather than proactive leadership—a trait ill-suited for high-stakes emergency service environments.
Review of Fire Chief Steve Holtzman: A Leadership Failure
Leadership in any department, especially one as critical as the fire service, demands not only competence but also integrity and the ability to inspire trust and respect. Unfortunately, Chief Holtzman has demonstrated an overwhelming inability to fulfill these fundamental responsibilities due to multiple different reasons.
Chief Holtzman lacks the essential qualities of effective leadership. Instead of fostering an environment of collaboration, respect, and accountability, they have cultivated a toxic atmosphere where fear is the primary motivator. Their leadership approach is based on strict authoritarianism, where decisions are often made without consultation or input from experienced staff, and team morale continues to plummet as a result. He lacks empathy towards his subordinates. Routinely making comments like “If you don’t like it, get a desk job.” or “I did it for 26 years, how much longer do you have before you’ve been here that long.” Even though the subordinates he’s speaking to have more than likely, run cumulatively more calls in the first 3-5 years of their career than he has during his entire tenure.
One of the most disturbing aspects of this Chief Holtzman’s leadership is his reliance on punishment to enforce discipline. Instead of offering constructive feedback or focusing on professional growth, the Chief often resorts to public shaming and punitive measures when mistakes are made. This creates an environment where team members are afraid to speak up or take calculated risks, ultimately hindering both personal and departmental growth. Accountability, under such leadership, is more about shifting blame than accepting responsibility for the overall performance of the team. The enforced discipline is also selective. High-rank officers, specifically Captains, appear to follow a different set of rules than the rest of the department.
Equally concerning is the Chief Holtzman’s consistent avoidance of accountability. Whether in incidents involving failure to act, poor decision-making, or neglecting essential responsibilities, the Chief routinely deflects blame onto others. Stating things like “not being able to possibly review every budget request form sent into him.” However, he spends countless hours making sure con-ed classes are the actual length of time the certificate states or even reading all EMS reports looking for minor mistakes. Rather than stepping up and taking ownership of mistakes or shortcomings, he finds ways to avoid scrutiny and cast others in the role of scapegoats. This lack of self-reflection and unwillingness to hold themselves or others in leadership roles accountable erodes the trust and respect that is critical in a leadership role.
Perhaps one of the most troubling statements from him was the declaration that “physical fitness is not a priority.” In an industry where physical health and stamina are absolutely critical—not just for the safety of the team but also for the lives they are sworn to protect—this stance is nothing short of irresponsible. Firefighting is a physically demanding job, and the well-being of every firefighter should be a top priority. To dismiss physical fitness as “not a priority” sends a dangerous message to the team, undermining the very core of what it takes to be prepared for the high-stress, high-risk situations firefighters face daily.
Additionally, there seems to be little interest in the professional development or well-being of the department’s staff. Rather than providing resources, training, or mentorship, he seems more concerned with micromanaging and maintaining control, often at the expense of morale and effective service delivery.
Ultimately, leadership in the fire service isn’t just about making the tough calls—it’s about ensuring that your team has the resources, support, and guidance they need to do their jobs effectively and safely. Sadly, under him, the department is suffering, and the team is being undermined at every turn. The environment is one of fear, uncertainty, and frustration, where growth is stifled, and communication is broken. This is a critical failure of leadership, and unless there is significant change, it’s hard to see how the department can thrive under such ineffective and divisive management.
Rating Breakdown
1/5
1/5
3.5/5
2.5/5
2 Reviews on “Steven Holtzman”
Over the course of more than three decades of service, Chief Steven Holtzman has accumulated substantial operational experience within the Beachwood Fire & Rescue Department. However, numerous concerns have been raised by current and former personnel regarding the character and effectiveness of his leadership, especially during his tenure as Chief since 2019.
Chief Holtzman’s management approach has been widely described as authoritarian and punitive rather than collaborative or inspirational. His leadership style has often lacked emotional intelligence, with a consistent pattern of poor communication, limited empathy, and dismissiveness toward the well-being of his subordinates. For instance, when approached by a member expressing symptoms of burnout, Chief Holtzman allegedly responded, “Well, get it together because I need you bright-eyed and bushy-tailed for the next call”—a statement perceived by peers as insensitive and indicative of a broader disregard for mental health and work-life balance. Similarly, his minimization of sleep as a “creature comfort” has led to concerns about the Department’s operational readiness and member safety.
More troubling are reported comments made in jest regarding suicide—a serious issue in the fire service. Such remarks have created a culture of distrust and emotional distance between leadership and rank-and-file members. His reluctance to engage in future planning—citing fear of being held accountable—has further eroded confidence. He has openly refused to develop 10-, 5-, or even 1-year strategic goals, stating, “If I didn’t accomplish it, you guys could hold me accountable.” This avoidance undermines transparency, long-term vision, and organizational growth.
Operationally, Chief Holtzman has demonstrated an unwillingness to advocate for increased staffing, reportedly due to concerns about political fallout or job security. Simultaneously, he has instituted rigid policies—such as a zero-tolerance tattoo policy—that many view as arbitrary and morale-reducing rather than mission-critical.
Culturally, his leadership has been marked by a tendency to rule through the threat of punishment rather than through mentorship or positive engagement. Suggestions from staff are often interpreted as personal challenges to his authority rather than opportunities for dialogue or improvement. There have also been repeated allegations of inappropriate humor, including remarks perceived as racially or sexually insensitive—behavior unbecoming of a leader in a diverse, modern fire service.
Finally, in moments requiring judgment and decisiveness, Chief Holtzman has shown a consistent lack of sound and timely decision-making. His preference to discipline first and investigate later, allegedly to avoid liability, has resulted in reactive rather than proactive leadership—a trait ill-suited for high-stakes emergency service environments.
Review of Fire Chief Steve Holtzman: A Leadership Failure
Leadership in any department, especially one as critical as the fire service, demands not only competence but also integrity and the ability to inspire trust and respect. Unfortunately, Chief Holtzman has demonstrated an overwhelming inability to fulfill these fundamental responsibilities due to multiple different reasons.
Chief Holtzman lacks the essential qualities of effective leadership. Instead of fostering an environment of collaboration, respect, and accountability, they have cultivated a toxic atmosphere where fear is the primary motivator. Their leadership approach is based on strict authoritarianism, where decisions are often made without consultation or input from experienced staff, and team morale continues to plummet as a result. He lacks empathy towards his subordinates. Routinely making comments like “If you don’t like it, get a desk job.” or “I did it for 26 years, how much longer do you have before you’ve been here that long.” Even though the subordinates he’s speaking to have more than likely, run cumulatively more calls in the first 3-5 years of their career than he has during his entire tenure.
One of the most disturbing aspects of this Chief Holtzman’s leadership is his reliance on punishment to enforce discipline. Instead of offering constructive feedback or focusing on professional growth, the Chief often resorts to public shaming and punitive measures when mistakes are made. This creates an environment where team members are afraid to speak up or take calculated risks, ultimately hindering both personal and departmental growth. Accountability, under such leadership, is more about shifting blame than accepting responsibility for the overall performance of the team. The enforced discipline is also selective. High-rank officers, specifically Captains, appear to follow a different set of rules than the rest of the department.
Equally concerning is the Chief Holtzman’s consistent avoidance of accountability. Whether in incidents involving failure to act, poor decision-making, or neglecting essential responsibilities, the Chief routinely deflects blame onto others. Stating things like “not being able to possibly review every budget request form sent into him.” However, he spends countless hours making sure con-ed classes are the actual length of time the certificate states or even reading all EMS reports looking for minor mistakes. Rather than stepping up and taking ownership of mistakes or shortcomings, he finds ways to avoid scrutiny and cast others in the role of scapegoats. This lack of self-reflection and unwillingness to hold themselves or others in leadership roles accountable erodes the trust and respect that is critical in a leadership role.
Perhaps one of the most troubling statements from him was the declaration that “physical fitness is not a priority.” In an industry where physical health and stamina are absolutely critical—not just for the safety of the team but also for the lives they are sworn to protect—this stance is nothing short of irresponsible. Firefighting is a physically demanding job, and the well-being of every firefighter should be a top priority. To dismiss physical fitness as “not a priority” sends a dangerous message to the team, undermining the very core of what it takes to be prepared for the high-stress, high-risk situations firefighters face daily.
Additionally, there seems to be little interest in the professional development or well-being of the department’s staff. Rather than providing resources, training, or mentorship, he seems more concerned with micromanaging and maintaining control, often at the expense of morale and effective service delivery.
Ultimately, leadership in the fire service isn’t just about making the tough calls—it’s about ensuring that your team has the resources, support, and guidance they need to do their jobs effectively and safely. Sadly, under him, the department is suffering, and the team is being undermined at every turn. The environment is one of fear, uncertainty, and frustration, where growth is stifled, and communication is broken. This is a critical failure of leadership, and unless there is significant change, it’s hard to see how the department can thrive under such ineffective and divisive management.